Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 505 (PNJ)

Tarsem Singh v. State Of Haryana

2005-04-08

VIRENDER SINGH

body2005
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Appellant Tarsem Singh stands convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter for short `the Act) vide impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad dated 11.10.2000. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.00 lac; in default thereof to further undergo RI for one year. 2. It is worth mentioning here that along with the present appellant, five other co-accused, namely, Chhinder, Jaggi, Jantu, Satpal and Des Raj, were also booked. They, however, stand acquitted by the learned trial Court. State of Haryana has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal. Another fact, which needs to be mentioned here is that other two accused, namely, Gurmukh Singh alias Pappu and Harcharan Singh alias Channa (owner of the truck and the conductor) vide order dated 12.10.1998 were discharged by the trial Court. No revision was filed by the State against their discharge. 3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 7.1.1998, in the area of village Rattangarh, a truck No. HNH-2731 being driven by the appellant was intercepted by SI Ajaib Singh (PW-10), a member of Special Staff Ratia, when he was present in the area of Ratia at a particular point along with his other police officials. He received a secret information to the effect that Des Raj and Jaggi (since acquitted) would be coming towards that point on a scooter without number plate and Des Raj would be piloting the aforesaid truck in which the poppy straw was being transported under the load of other goods covered with a tarpaulin. After the truck was intercepted, the present appellant was found sitting on the steering of the said truck. The other persons, namely, Pappu and Chhinder were occupying the seats inside the cabin of the driver, whereas Jantu and Satpal were occupying the seats on the roof of the cabin. Four occupants of the truck were apprehended while one of them succeeded in making good his escape. The appellant disclosed his name to the Police Party. The other persons, who were apprehended at the spot also disclosed their names. The persons, who were piloting the truck on the scooter were also nabbed. They had also disclosed their names to the Police party. The appellant disclosed his name to the Police Party. The other persons, who were apprehended at the spot also disclosed their names. The persons, who were piloting the truck on the scooter were also nabbed. They had also disclosed their names to the Police party. After completing all the statutory formalities, the truck was searched in the presence of Charanjit Singh, DSP, Fatehabad (PW-1), who was called at the spot. One Dharambir Mittal, Tehsildar was also present there. During the search, 107 bags containing poppy straw were found under 55 bags containing animal feed. Two samples of 100 gms of poppy straw was weighed, which turns out to be 39 kilograms 800 grams. The poppy straw taken out as sample was then converted into parcels, which were sealed. The bags containing remainder poppy straw were also similar sealed. The other bags containing animal feed were also sealed. The truck and the scooter were also taken into possession vide separate seizure memo. An intimation was sent to the concerned Police Station, on the basis of which the formal FIR was recorded. After the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner and completion of the investigation, the present appellant and his co-accused were challaned to face trial. 4. As stated above, two of the co-accused of the appellant were discharged and the others were charged under Section 15 of the Act. 5. I have heard Mr. S.S. Toor, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. With their assistance, I have gone through the entire record. 6. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the conscious possession of the appellant qua the contraband, is not proved in this case for the reason that the appellant was the driver of the truck and he had no knowledge as to what was being carried in the said truck. The learned counsel then submits that the other persons, who were sitting in the truck and can possibly be said to be having the knowledge of the items being carried by them in the truck, have since been acquitted and that their acquittal has attained finality as no appeal was preferred by the State. The learned counsel then submits that the other persons, who were sitting in the truck and can possibly be said to be having the knowledge of the items being carried by them in the truck, have since been acquitted and that their acquittal has attained finality as no appeal was preferred by the State. The learned counsel then submits that Gurmukh Singh alias Pappu and Harcharan Singh alias Channa (owner and conductor of Truck), have also been discharged at the initial stage and the State has also not preferred any revision against their discharge. The learned counsel then submits that the case of the prosecution cannot be segregated qua the present appellant and once the aforesaid persons have earned acquittal or discharged, the case of the prosecution qua the appellant also falls to the ground. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel submits that the appellant deserves acquittal. 8. The other alternative submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to quantum of sentence stating that the appellant is in custody since the date of his arrest and by now he has undergone more than seven years; he is a poor person and whole of his family is ruined on account of his long stay in the jail. He further submits that in the event of his conviction being maintained, he can atleast be shown some concessional tilt with regard to reduction in the quantum of sentence on account of non-payment of fine. 9. Whatever is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant is vehemently controverted by the State counsel, submitting that the recovery in this case is very heavy and the appellant has no escape in this case. The learned State counsel then submits that it is not possible that the appellant, may be being a driver, was not aware of the fact as to what was being carried in the truck. The learned State counsel submits that the finding as recorded by the trial Court, thus, deserves to be upheld. With regard to quantum of sentence, it is submitted by the learned State counsel that the appellant does not deserve the least sympathy in view of the peculiar facts of the present case. 10. The learned State counsel submits that the finding as recorded by the trial Court, thus, deserves to be upheld. With regard to quantum of sentence, it is submitted by the learned State counsel that the appellant does not deserve the least sympathy in view of the peculiar facts of the present case. 10. After hearing rival contentions of the either side and going through the entire record minutely, in my view, the case of the prosecution is proved to the hilt. 11. The recovery in this case is of 107 bags of poppy straw, certainly a very huge quantity. No doubt, as per the case of the prosecution, all the bags were kept under the other bags, which were carrying the animal feed, but by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the appellant was not aware of what was being carried in the said truck. Another fact, which goes against the appellant is that his truck was being piloted by two persons (since acquitted). This again is a circumstance to impute the knowledge. Although the other co-accused, who were piloting the truck have since earned acquittal and no appeal has been filed against their acquittal, yet the case of the appellant can very well be segregated. In my view, the appellant has no escape at all. 12. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, I conclude that the conscious possession of 107 bags (total quantity 42 kilograms 800 gms) of poppy straw qua the appellant is proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. The conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the trial Court is, thus, affirmed. 13. With regard to quantum of sentence, the appellant does not deserve any reduction for the sentence awarded (ten years) for the main charge, the same being minimum, according to statute. However, the sentence of one year, awarded to the appellant on account of non-payment of fine can be reduced, to some reasonable period, keeping in view the fact that the appellant is in custody since the date of his arrest, which by now turns out to be 7 years. The ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of one year awarded to the appellant on account of default clause, is reduced to three months. It is so ordered. The net result is that the instant appeal stands dismissed. The ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of one year awarded to the appellant on account of default clause, is reduced to three months. It is so ordered. The net result is that the instant appeal stands dismissed. The sentence of 10 years, as awarded by the trial Court for the main charge, is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence of one year, awarded on account of non-payment of fine is reduced in the terms, as indicated hereinabove. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.